1) Let's talk percentages. The odds of being prosecuted for a crime not committed is slim compared to the chaos of anarchy under even the most corrupt government. Anarchy is also highly improbable within the human race, since any given individual will always look up to, or another will look down at someone else...and someone will inevitably lead...and another follow. Millions of years of evolution ensured that a social animal will maintain a hierarchy of some sort. Who would rule? You? Maybe you'd be a just ruler...but many would disagree.
2) Many people have won wrongful imprisonment suits in the U.S. One recently near me. Yeah...they'll live the rest of their lives comfortably. That's why we have a civil court as well as a criminal court.
3) "Fair" doesn't equate justice.
4) Your opinion of what constitutes justifiable use of deadly force, raping your dog for example, wouldn't necessarily agree with the guy who believes that a neighbor blowing his leaves on his lawn deserves to die...or the one who thinks child molesters should get a $50 fine. That's why we have the rule that you're juged by a representative of your peers: 12 men & women from within your community debate the matter.
Perfect? No...but until someone comes up with a better idea, they...or you...are welcome to present it to Congress, who makes the laws.
I really agree with "'Fair' doesn't equate justice." The government should exist to have a net positive impact on society. Sometimes, such as with civil rights, fairness can be a consequence of that. In many cases, though, what feels "fair" and what's actually constructive are two very different things.
The guy who would kill his neighbor for blowing leaves would chose whether or not to kill him either way regardless of the politcal system. People who dont commit crimes because of fear of the government would instead choose not to out of fear of being killed by someone seeking to avenge that persons death. I realize in a society of anarchy someone would try to take over which is why the people should be responsible of not letting someone control them. It would allow more freedom of people braning washing society into following them.
To a certain extent, I understand where you're coming from. If a person's choices are dictated by rule of law, the threat of being caught and prosecuted determines their choices, taking away their ability to simply make the right decision for the sake of compassion and respect..leaving us unable to learn integrity.
Unfortunately, we have not quite evolved sociologically to the stage where everyone can be trusted to rule themselves. This is painful to say as a Libertarian, because I believe that we're closer to that stage than those who believe in government control of individual choices.
Where society lies currently, we have to have law for the sake of maintaining some sense of order. The proverbial, "right to swing your fist ends at someone elses nose" has to be enforced to prevent chaos.
The guy who would kill his neighbor for blowing leaves on his lawn, in your model of society, would be left alone to his own vices. The neighborhood would simply say "don't blow leaves on his lawn...he's a crazy motherfucker!" but he would just be looking for the next reason to react...maybe blow away the kid who stepped off the sidewalk onto his grass. That's why we have to incarcerate madmen. If we don't, psychotic killers will rule the world.
IIN that I think people should take the law into their own hands
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
1) Let's talk percentages. The odds of being prosecuted for a crime not committed is slim compared to the chaos of anarchy under even the most corrupt government. Anarchy is also highly improbable within the human race, since any given individual will always look up to, or another will look down at someone else...and someone will inevitably lead...and another follow. Millions of years of evolution ensured that a social animal will maintain a hierarchy of some sort. Who would rule? You? Maybe you'd be a just ruler...but many would disagree.
2) Many people have won wrongful imprisonment suits in the U.S. One recently near me. Yeah...they'll live the rest of their lives comfortably. That's why we have a civil court as well as a criminal court.
3) "Fair" doesn't equate justice.
4) Your opinion of what constitutes justifiable use of deadly force, raping your dog for example, wouldn't necessarily agree with the guy who believes that a neighbor blowing his leaves on his lawn deserves to die...or the one who thinks child molesters should get a $50 fine. That's why we have the rule that you're juged by a representative of your peers: 12 men & women from within your community debate the matter.
Perfect? No...but until someone comes up with a better idea, they...or you...are welcome to present it to Congress, who makes the laws.
--
VioletTrees
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Anonymous Post Author
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I really agree with "'Fair' doesn't equate justice." The government should exist to have a net positive impact on society. Sometimes, such as with civil rights, fairness can be a consequence of that. In many cases, though, what feels "fair" and what's actually constructive are two very different things.
The guy who would kill his neighbor for blowing leaves would chose whether or not to kill him either way regardless of the politcal system. People who dont commit crimes because of fear of the government would instead choose not to out of fear of being killed by someone seeking to avenge that persons death. I realize in a society of anarchy someone would try to take over which is why the people should be responsible of not letting someone control them. It would allow more freedom of people braning washing society into following them.
--
[Old Memory]
11 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
To a certain extent, I understand where you're coming from. If a person's choices are dictated by rule of law, the threat of being caught and prosecuted determines their choices, taking away their ability to simply make the right decision for the sake of compassion and respect..leaving us unable to learn integrity.
Unfortunately, we have not quite evolved sociologically to the stage where everyone can be trusted to rule themselves. This is painful to say as a Libertarian, because I believe that we're closer to that stage than those who believe in government control of individual choices.
Where society lies currently, we have to have law for the sake of maintaining some sense of order. The proverbial, "right to swing your fist ends at someone elses nose" has to be enforced to prevent chaos.
The guy who would kill his neighbor for blowing leaves on his lawn, in your model of society, would be left alone to his own vices. The neighborhood would simply say "don't blow leaves on his lawn...he's a crazy motherfucker!" but he would just be looking for the next reason to react...maybe blow away the kid who stepped off the sidewalk onto his grass. That's why we have to incarcerate madmen. If we don't, psychotic killers will rule the world.